About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
: it was voted down three consecutive times. host: here's an e-mail from bob and florida. making the economic argument against right-to-work state. and then there are people who have an economic argument on the other side of it. if we read a piece earlier in the washington post on what right-to-work states due to the broader economy. -- due to the state's economy? and now this isn't egypt. on the front page of the washington post, amid this turmoil, aid for egypt is on its way. the u.s. and a coalition of international lenders are pushing ahead with billions of dollars of loans and other help for egypt and neighboring states. so, money going to the country despite the violence there. and on the domestic front, the richmond times dispatch, courtesy of the newseum, health care law includes from a surprising $60 coverage free. bob in rapid city, south dakota, republican caller. caller: whee are a right-to- work state. in the past week we had an article in the newspaper that we are 16th in the nation in income. we averaged 44,000. where is the nation averages 41,000. so it's just not true that a
that will be calculated, and quite frankly, in a more simplified form been standard tax law. host: professor bob kelly? guest: when i say chaos i am -- professor buckley? >> when i say chaos, i am referring to two things. the irs has done programming based on their being a patch enacted by the end of the year. most tax returns software has made the same calculated gamble. i agree that the government needs revenue. i do not think there is any question of that. if you just say that the amt is a good tax because it raises revenue, i do not argue on the notion that we need money, however is an extraordinarily arbitrary way of raising revenue. it raises revenue not from the super wealthy. the amt applies to few people making more than half of $1 million. it is counter-intuitive. if you are going to raise revenue, it should be as president obama has suggested, shared sacrifice, and that sacrifice has to come from people making more than half of $1 million. host: how do the very wealthy get out of paying the amt? guest: because of the rate structure. the rate between $200,000 and $500,000 are at least as hig
blumenthal and chris murphy. at 4:00, "face the nation." bob schieffer talks with governor molloy and paul vance. chuck schumer of new york and kay bailey, from texas. these are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. the rearing begins at noon eastern. at 3:00, listened to them all on c-span radio. -- listen to them all on c-span radio. you can listen on your smart phone or online. caller: my inspiration was -- [video clip] >> my inspiration was the archives and documents about the cold war. talking about roosevelt, stalin, churchill, we know the main events from our point of view. i wanted to show it from a different angle, from the ground up, what did it feel like to be one of the people subjected to this system. how did people make choices in that system? how did they react? how did they behave? one of the things that has happened since 1989 is the region called eastern europe has become very differentiated. these countries will longer have anything in common with each other except for the common memory of communist occupation. >> more with anne applebaum, tonigh
to the floor. the bill is not moving along, says bob corker from tennessee. here is what the republican from idaho had to say about the fiscal cliff negotiation. [video clip] >> if we get down to the end of the year and the only choice we have is to save taxes going up on the middle-class, i would support that. but i wish we had a comprehensive bill that dealt with spending, entitlement, and taxes altogether. that is really what we ought to do. host: that was senator johnny isaacson from georgia, excuse me, not from idaho. we will go back to the question here for all of you. we will continue to give you news from the newspapers. but how does religion and law was your politics? democratic caller. go ahead. caller: i had originally called in response to set oralism in government, which i prefer -- secularism in government, which are for. a country which invites everyone into it, all religions and nationalities, must by definition be secular. any religious direction we choose is going to favor somebody, and i thought that is what we were trying to avoid. at least i thought that is what jefferso
with their presence. there's usually two or three of them i see. host: moving on to bob in pennsylvania. bob, how long have you been with the n.r.a.? caller: a long time. host: 10-20 years? caller: 15 years. what kind of guns do you own? caller: guns, shotguns, pistols, and i do own an a.r.-15. host: what do you think about mr. lapierre? caller: i was disappointed. i was anxious to hear the news conference and hopeful n.r.a. would come out with a reasonable response and want to lead in the middle. i believe that it's a good idea to have armed edwards in school. -- armed guards in school. the n.r.a. said they would train these people with an unlimited budget. but they stop way short of -- yes, video games and violence in our society, kids playing on these video games and the movies and the music. when i was young, we were not allowed to watch "the untouchables," eliot with robert because my parents thought it was too violent. my parents thought. and now we've come to this. there's no reason these guns should be available for sale. they have no place in the sporting arena or no place in the hunting aren
. that's the furthest thing from the truth. host: bob in silver spring, maryland, republican. caller: how are ya? i don't like it when the democrats all ask for gun restrictions in view of the tragedy. what about restrictions on the first amendment? do you want a balanced approach? should we restrict violent movies and video games by law? maybe in a movie, only three people can get shot, what do you think of that? guest: i am a former journalist. i have great respect for the first amendment and of the right to expression. we want to promote creativity and promote restrictit, so i would not advocate any legislative controls on content. -- we want to promote creativity, not to restrict it. we are talking about the need for parents to be responsible in what they allow their impressionable children to use or to seek. beyond that, i don't see we have much of our role. host: our last call comes from lamont in mansfield, ohio, a democrat. caller: how are you doing? i have more of a comment than a question. i think the problem with the guns does not act to do with legislation or mental check ups.
we are heading in the same direction. thank you and have a wonderful new year. host: a tear from bob now in the democrat light. caller: thank you for letting me have a chance to speak. i am more optimistic -- i a more pessimistic than optimistic. i just do not think they will ever get together like they should. my one comment is when they start speaking about the cuts and the entitlements, the always a social security, medicare, medicaid. that is not the only entitlements. every government program that has a retirement benefit, a health-care benefit, those are entitlements, two, up to and including the entitlements for the congressman. let's be fair. when they start talking about entitlements and hold it to those three items, let's hold their feet to the fire and make them talk about entitlements for the other folks, too. host: appreciate you calling this morning. donna writes about this on twitter. if that to facebook here. -- back to you facebook here. budget showdown hits the keep week. that is of the front page reminding us of the deadline looming. it is a bloomberg story here ou
. when i was back in d.c., we had dan and bob and they sat in an irish bar around the corner and worked out the tax bill in 1987, i believe the year was. that's the kind of leadership the article was just talking about. instead of the people that call up and paris at the propaganda, we really have to be practical. -- that parrot the propaganda. a house divided cannot stand. let me give my personal example. i live on $6.66 a day. that is food stamps. that is for single adults. i live on social security, $774 a month. i am trying to go back to cornell to do sustainable energy. we are in a double down on reaganomics in despite. jimmy carter had great inflation because for five years we were a peaceful country again. then reagan put us back into the largest military buildup in peacetime. i think that's what we ought to do is realize that did not work, just like some of the new deal stuff was not working correctly. what we have to do is c- span.org [indiscernible] i want to thank mr. richard delver of the department of transportation, because unlike michael bloomberg -- host: you have gone a
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8